8458 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2024 / Notices 

proposed collection of information 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques, or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submissions of responses. 

I. Background 

IMLS is the primary source of federal 

support for the Nation’s libraries and 

museums. We advance, support, and 

empower America’s museums, libraries, 

and related organizations through grant 

making, research, and policy 

development. To learn more, visit 

www.imls.gov. 

II. Current Actions 

The CAP program allows a qualified 

conservator to study all of a museum’s 

collections, buildings, and building 

systems, as well as its policies and 

procedures relating to collections care. 

Participants who complete the program 

receive an assessment report with 

prioritized recommendations to improve 

collections care. The forms submitted 

for public review in this Notice are 

application forms for assessors and 

participating museums; pre-visit site 

questionnaires for participating 

museums; CAP program evaluation 

forms for participating museums and 

assessors; and a follow-up survey for 

participating museums. 

Agency: Institute of Museum and 

Library Services. 

Title: IMLS Collections Assessment 

for Preservation Forms. 

OMB Control Number: 3137–0126. 

Respondents/Affected Public: 

Museum professionals and professional 

conservators. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: TBD. 

Frequency of Response: TBD. 

Average Hours per Response: TBD. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: TBD. 

Cost Burden (dollars): TBD. 

Public Comments Invited: Comments 

submitted in response to this Notice 

will be summarized and/or included in 

the request for OMB’s clearance of this 

information collection. 

Dated: February 1, 2024. 

Suzanne Mbollo, 

Grants Management Specialist, Institute of 

Museum and Library Services. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02432 Filed 2–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7036–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request; 

Evaluation of the National Science 

Foundation’s (NSF) Broader Impacts 

Review Criterion 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) has submitted the 

following information collection 

requirement to OMB for review and 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. This is the 

second notice for public comment; the 

first was published in the Federal 

Register, and no comments were 

received. NSF is forwarding the 

proposed submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

clearance simultaneously with the 

publication of this second notice. 

DATES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAmain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, National Science Foundation, 

2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292– 

7556; or send email to splimpto@

nsf.gov. Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339, which is accessible 24 hours a 

day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year 

(including Federal holidays). 

Comments: Comments regarding (a) 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

NSF, including whether the information 

shall have practical utility; (b) the 

accuracy of the NSF’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, use, and clarity of the 

information on respondents; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology 

should be addressed to the points of 

contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Copies of the submission may be 

obtained by calling 703–292–7556. NSF 

may not conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information unless the collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number, and the agency 

informs potential persons who are to 

respond to the collection of information 

that such persons are not required to 

respond to the collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Evaluation of the 

National Science Foundation’s (NSF) 

Broader Impacts Review Criterion. 

OMB Number: 3145–NEW. 

Type of Request: New information 

collection. 

Description: NSF is conducting an 

evaluation to assess (1) how NSF’s 

Broader Impacts review criterion is 

applied across the Foundation and (2) 

its effectiveness in meeting the goals 

established in section 526 of the 

America Creating Opportunities to 

Meaningfully Promote Excellence in 

Technology, Education, and Science 

Reauthorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 

1862p–14) (America COMPETES 

Reauthorization Act of 2010). This 

evaluation is congressionally directed in 

section 10341 of the Creating Helpful 

Incentives to Produce Semiconductors 

[CHIPS] for America Fund Act 2022. As 

part of the evaluation, NSF is 

conducting a literature review, 

document analysis, extant data analysis, 

interviews with NSF staff, and focus 

groups with NSF principal investigators 

(PIs) and reviewers. NSF will map 

findings from the evaluation activities to 

current NSF policies and practices to 

identify strategies for improving how 

NSF applies the review criterion. 

The subject of this request is related 

to the planned focus groups with PIs 

and reviewers. The focus groups will 

answer the following research questions 

(RQs): 

• RQ1. In what ways do the 

interpretations of the Broader Impacts 

review criterion among PIs and 

reviewers vary, and what factors might 

contribute to these variations? 

• RQ2. How do external reviewers 

assess the Broader Impact review 

criterion? 

• RQ3. In what ways do PIs and 

reviewers perceive that variations in 

interpretation and assessment can 

advance or hinder the merit review of 

proposals? 

Findings from the focus groups 

described in this request will be used to 

inform interpretation of other evaluation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2024 / Notices 8459 

activities within the larger project 

(including informing interpretation of 

interviews with NSF staff, document 

review analyses, and interpretation of 

extant data analysis of review analyses). 

For example, we anticipate that 

participants in these focus groups may 

raise issues around their understanding 

and interpretation of Broader Impacts, 

which can be compared to perceptions 

that NSF staff report during interviews. 

Background 

NSF sets forth an ambitious vision for 

the United States: a nation that leads the 

world in science and engineering 

research and innovation, to the benefit 

of all, without barriers to participation. 

Toward this end, NSF promotes the 

progress of science by investing in 

research and capacity-building activities 

that expand knowledge in science, 

engineering, and education. In fiscal 

year (FY) 2022, NSF evaluated almost 

40,000 proposals for research and 

education activities, making nearly 

11,000 new awards totaling more than 

$8.5 billion. 

At the cornerstone of NSF’s mission 

and its investments is its merit review 

process. NSF program directors with 

technical and programmatic expertise 

lead this process, with support from 

external experts who help evaluate 

submitted proposals for two main 

criteria: (1) Intellectual Merit—the 

potential to advance knowledge; and (2) 

Broader Impacts—the potential to 

contribute to society and achieve 

specific, desired societal outcomes. 

With these two criteria, NSF has 

established a commitment to projects 

that provide tangible benefits to society 

beyond advancing knowledge. 

It is critically important that NSF 

implement its merit review process in a 

way that is fair, thorough, competitive, 

and transparent, and that those internal 

and external to NSF recognize the 

process as such. However, as NSF 

noted, PIs and reviewers might lack 

clarity about the Broader Impacts 

criterion, despite NSF’s efforts to 

provide additional guidance. NSF has 

also noted a lack of consistency in how 

NSF implements the criterion across 

directorates, divisions, and programs. 

Specific challenges related to the 

understanding and application of 

Broader Impacts include a lack of 

consensus on how to define Broader 

Impacts, and a disconnect between the 

Broader Impacts requirements stated in 

the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & 

Procedures Guide and how panelists 

review these activities (National 

Alliance for Broader Impacts 2018). The 

purpose of this work, then, is to ‘‘assess 

how the Broader Impact review criterion 

is applied across the Foundation and 

make recommendations for improving 

the effectiveness for meeting the goals 

established in section 526 of the 

America Creating Opportunities to 

Meaningfully Promote Excellence in 

Technology, Education, and Science 

Reauthorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 

1862p–14)’’ (America COMPETES 

Reauthorization Act of 2010). This 

evaluation is congressionally directed in 

section 10341 of the Creating Helpful 

Incentives to Produce Semiconductors 

[CHIPS] for America Fund Act 2022. 

Methodology 

Focus groups will be conducted with 

two types of respondents: PIs and 

reviewers. 

The evaluation will include three PI 

focus groups of up to seven people each. 

Participants in these groups will be PIs 

who submitted a proposal within the 

last five years. The study team will 

select participants via a stratified 

random sample by NSF directorate, 

institutional characteristics (such as 

Carnegie classification, MSI status, and 

locale), and participant characteristics 

(such as race/ethnicity, gender, years 

since terminal degree, and new 

investigator status). PIs have firsthand 

experience addressing the Broader 

Impacts review criterion in their 

proposals. Among this group, key 

insights include the following: 

1. Questions they have about how to 

address the Broader Impacts review 

criterion in their research and 

proposals. 

2. Strategies they have employed as a 

PI in addressing the Broader Impacts 

review criterion in their research and 

proposals. 

3. Resources or supports received 

from their respective institutions for 

developing well-thought-out proposals 

that address the Broader Impacts review 

criterion. 

Reviewer focus groups will consist of 

three focus groups of up to seven people 

each. Participants in these groups will 

be people who served on a review panel 

within the last five years. The study 

team will select participants via a 

stratified random sample by directorate 

and participant characteristics (such as 

how long they have been reviewing NSF 

proposals). Reviewers have firsthand 

knowledge about applying the Broader 

Impacts review criterion. Among this 

group, key insights include the 

following: 

1. Interpretating and applying the 

criterion as a reviewer (and compared 

with as a PI). 

2. Reviewer training and guidance. 

Affected Public: NSF reviewers and 

PIs. 

AVERAGE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES

Collection method 

Estimated 

lower bound 

(number of 

responses) 

Estimated 

upper bound 

(number of 

responses) 

Estimated 

average 

response time 

(min) 

Approximate 

lower bound 

response burden 

(hours) 

Approximate 

upper bound 

response burden 

(hours) 

Focus groups ............................................... 4*6=24 7*6=42 90 minutes (24*90)/60=36 (42*90)/60=72 

Respondents: Lower-bound estimate 

of 24 individuals and upper-bound 

estimate of 48 individuals. 

Average Minutes per Response: 90. 

Burden Hours: Lower- and upperbound estimates of approximately 36 

and 72 hours. 

Dated: January 3, 2023. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02500 Filed 2–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CP2022–110] 

New Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing for the 

Commission’s consideration concerning 

a negotiated service agreement. This 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES